Science as a Candle in the Dark

All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike--and
yet it is the most precious thing we have.

Albert Einstein,

There is no other species on Earth that does science. It is, so far,
entirely a human invention, evolved by natural selection in the cerebral
cortex for one simple reason: it works. It is not perfect. It can be
misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have,
self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything.

Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. [...]
The method of science ... is far more important than the findings of science.
[
Radio interview with Carl ]

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; pp.25,22)

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly
contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how
bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical
scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
[ View longer excerpt ][
Radio interview ]

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; p.304)

It is surprising that people do not believe that there is
imagination in science. It is a very interesting kind of
imagination, unlike that of the artist. The great difficulty is
in trying to imagine something that you have never seen, that
is consistent in every detail with what has already been seen,
and that is different from what has been thought of;
furthermore, it must be definite and not a vague proposition.
That is indeed difficult. [...]

But see that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than
the imagination of man. No one who did not have some inkling
of this through observations could ever have imagined such a
marvel as nature is.

Richard Feynman,
The Meaning of It All
(1963/1998; p.23 and p.10)

The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following:
The test of all knowledge is experiment.
Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth."
But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to
be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws,
in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is
imagination to create from these hints the great
generalizations--to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange
patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again
whether we have made the right guess.

The principle that the observation is the judge imposes a severe
limitation to the kind of questions that can be answered.
They are limited to questions that you can put this way:
"if I do this, what will happen?" There are ways to try and see.
Questions like, "should I do this?" and "what is the value of
this?" are not of the same kind.

Richard Feynman,
The Meaning of It All
(1963/1998; p.16)

When the scientist tells you he does not know the answer, he is
an ignorant man. When he tells you he has a hunch about how it
is going to work, he is uncertain about it. When he is pretty
sure of how it is going to work, and he tells you, "This is the
way it is going to work, I'll bet," he still is in some doubt.
And it is of paramount importance, in order to make progress,
that we recognize this ignorance and this doubt. Because we have
the doubt, we then propose looking in new directions for new
ideas. The rate of development in science is not the rate at
which you make observations alone but, much more important,
the rate at which you create new things to test.

Richard Feynman,
The Meaning of It All
(1963/1998; p.27)

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of
everyday thinking.

Albert Einstein,
Physics and Reality
(1936; p.59)

Consider the very roots of our ability to discern truth.
Above all (or perhaps I should say "underneath all"),
common sense is what we depend on--that crazily elusive,
ubiquitous faculty we all have, to some degree or other. [...]
If we apply common sense to itself over and over again, we wind up
building a skyscraper. The ground floor of this structure is the
ordinary common sense we all have, and the rules for building new
floors are implicit in the ground floor itself. However, working
it all out is a gigantic task, and the result is a structure that
transcends mere common sense.
Pretty soon, even though it has all been built up from common
ingredients, the structure of this extended common sense is quite
arcane and elusive. We might call the quality represented by the
upper floors of this skyscraper "rare sense"; but it is usually
called "science". And some of the ideas and discoveries that have
come out of this originally simple and everyday ability defy the
ground floor totally.
[ View longer excerpt ]

I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself
I seem to have been only like a boy, playing on the seashore,
and diverting myself, in now and then finding a smoother pebble
or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of
truth lay all undiscovered before me.

Isaac Newton
[written just before his death]

We are driven by the insatiable curiosity of the scientist, and
our work is a delightful game. I am frequently astonished that
it so often results in correct predictions of experimental
results.

Murray Gell-Mann

Yes, I am a relentless quester after the chief patterns of the
universe -- central organizing principles, clean and powerful
ways to categorize what is "out there".

The next aspect of science [besides the technology it delivers] is
its contents, the things that have been found out. This is the
yield. The is the gold. This is the excitement, the pay you get
for all the disciplined thinking and hard work. The work is not
done for the sake of an application. It is done for the excitement
of what is found out. Perhaps most of you know this. But to
those of you who do not know it, it is almost impossible for me
to convey in a lecture this important aspect, this exciting part,
the real reason for science. And without understanding this you
miss the whole point. You cannot understand science and its
relation to anything else unless you understand and appreciate
the great adventure of our time. You do not live in your time
unless you understand that this is a tremendous adventure and
a wild and exciting thing.

Richard Feynman,
The Meaning of It All
(1963/1998; p.9)

Science properly done is one of the humanities, as a fine physics
teacher once said. The point of science is to help us understand
what we are and how we got here, and for this we need the great
stories: the tale of how, once upon a time, there was a Big Bang;
the Darwinian epic of the evolution of life on Earth; and now the
story we are just beginning to learn how to tell: the amazing
adventure of the primate autobiographers who finally taught
themselves how to tell the story of the amazing adventure of the
primate autobiographers.

Daniel Dennett

It seems to me that when it's time to die, and that will come to
all of us, there'll be a certain pleasure in thinking that you
had utilized your life well, that you had learned as much as you
could, gathered in as much as possible of the universe, and
enjoyed it. I mean, there's only this one universe and only
this one lifetime to grasp it. And, while it is inconceivable
that anyone can grasp more than a tiny portion of it, at least
do that much. What a tragedy just to pass through and get nothing
out of it.

Isaac Asimov
Interview with Bill Moyers
(1988)

It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe, beyond
man, to contemplate what it would be like without man, as it
was in a great part of its long history and as it is in a great
majority of places. When this objective view is finally attained,
and the mystery and majesty of matter are fully appreciated,
to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter,
to view life as part of this universal mystery of greatest depth,
is to sense an experience which is very rare, and very exciting.
It usually ends up in laughter and a delight in the futility
of trying to understand what this atom in the universe is,
this thing -- atoms with curiosity -- that looks at itself
and wonders why it wonders.
Well, these scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the
edge of the uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so
impressive that the theory that it is all arranged as a stage
for God to watch mans's struggle for good and evil seems
inadequate.

Science is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge. It is just the
best we have. In this respect, as in many others, it's like democracy.
[ View longer excerpt ][
Radio interview ]

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; p.27)

Moyers: Is it possible that you suffer from an excessive trust
in rationality?

Asimov: I can't answer that very easily.
Perhaps I do, but I cant' think of anything else to trust in.
You say to yourself, "If you can't go by reason, what can you go by?"
Now, one answer is faith. But faith in what? I notice there's no
general agreement in world of these matters of faith; they are not
compelling. I have my faith. You have your faith. And there's no
way in which I can translate my faith to you or vice versa.
At least as far as reason's concerned, there's a system of rational
argument following the laws of logic, et cetera, that a great many
people agree on.
Therefore, in reason there are what we call compelling arguments.
That is, if I locate certain kinds of evidence, even people who
disagreed with me to begin with, once they study the evidence, find
themselves compelled to agree by the evidence. But wherever we go
beyond reason into faith, there's no such thing as compelling
evidence. Even if you have a revelation, how can you transfer that
revelation to others? By what system?

Isaac Asimov
Interview with Bill Moyers
(1988)

As soon as it is held that any belief, no matter what, is important for
some other reason than that it is true, a whole host of evils is ready
to spring up.

Bertrand Russell,
Can religion cure our troubles?
(1954/1957; p.197)

We are error-prone. [...] We're good at some things but not in everything.
Wisdom lies in understanding our limitations.
"For Man is a giddy thing," teaches William Shakespeare.
That's where the stuffy skeptical rigor of science comes in. [...]
The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more
important than the findings of science.

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; pp.21-22)

[There are some] features of the professional life of the scientist,
which make of it one of the great phenomena of the contemporary world.
[...] There is ... a total lack of authoritarianism, which is hard
to comprehend or admit unless one has lived with it.
This is accomplished by one of the most exacting of intellectual disciplines.
In physics the worker learns the possibility of error very early.
He learns that there are ways to correct his mistakes; he learns the
futility of trying to conceal them. For it is not a field in which
error awaits death and subsequent generations for verdict--the next
issue of the journals will take care of it.
The refinement of techniques for the prompt discovery of error
serves as well as any other as a hallmark of what we mean by science.

In any case, it is an area of collective effort in which there is a clear
and well-defined community whose canons of taste and order simplify the
life of the practitioner. It is a field in which the technique of
experiment has given an almost perfect harmony to the balance between
thought and action. In it we learn so frequently that we could almost
become accustomed to it, how vast is the novelty of the world, and how
much even the physical worlds transcends in delicacy and in balance
the limits of man's prior imaginings.
We learn that views may be useful and inspiriting although they are
not complete.
We come to have a great caution in all assertions of totality, of
finality or absoluteness.

In this field quite ordinary men, using what are in the last
analysis only the tools which are generally available in our
society, manage to unfold for themselves and all others who wish
to learn, the rich story of one aspect of the physical world, and
of man's experience. We learn to throw away those instruments of
action and those modes of description which are not appropriate
to the reality we are trying to discern, and in this most painful
discipline, we find ourselves modest before the world.

[...] This combination of courage and modesty ... is the lesson that
science always tries to teach to anyone who practices it. ...
The value of science as method, rather than science as doctrine,
underlies the practices of teaching to scientist and layman alike.

Robert Oppenheimer,
Physics in the Contemporary World
(1947 MIT lecture)

It is of great use in the pursuit of knowledge not to be too
confident, nor too distrustful of our own judgment, nor to
believe we can comprehend all things or nothing.
He that distrusts his own judgment in every thing, and thinks
his understanding not to be relied on in the search of truth,
cuts off his own legs that he may be carried up and down by
others, and makes himself a ridiculous dependant upon the
knowledge of others, which can possibly be of no use to him...
On the other side, he that thinks his understanding capable
of all things, mounts upon wings of his own fancy, though
indeed Nature never meant him any, and so venturing into the
vast expanse of incomprehensible verities, only makes good
the fable of Icarus, and loses himself in the abyss.
We are here in the state of mediocrity; finite creatures,
furnished with powers and faculties very well fitted to some
purposes, but very disproportionate to the vast and unlimited
extent of things...

John Locke,
Journal
(1677)

This freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and,
I believe, in other fields. It was born of a struggle.
It was a struggle to be permitted to doubt, to be unsure.
And I do not want us to forget the importance of the struggle
and, by default, to let the thing fall away.
I feel a responsibility as a scientist who knows the great value
of a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, and the progress
made possible by such a philosophy, progress which is the
fruit of freedom of thought.
I feel a responsibility to proclaim the value of this freedom
and to teach that doubt is not to be feared, but that it is
to be welcomed as the possibility of a new potential for
human beings.
If you know you are not sure, you have a chance to improve the
situation. I want to demand this freedom for future generations.

Richard Feynman,
The Meaning of It All
(1963/1998; p.28)

In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ
of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover and wickedness
insensibly open, cultivate and improve. Every government degenerates
when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves
therefore are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe,
their minds must be improved.

Thomas Jefferson,
Notes on Virginia

We are not so smart. We are dumb. We are ignorant. We must
maintain an open channel. I believe in limited government. [...]
No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific
principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of
questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the
aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of
literary or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on
the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical
doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain
the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further
adventure and the development of the human race.

Richard Feynman,
The Meaning of It All
(1963/1998; p.57)

Freedom is a prerequisite for continuing the delicate experiment of
science--which is one reason the Soviet Union could not remain a
totalitarian state and be technologically competitive.
[ Example ][
Radio interview ]
At the same time, science--or rather its delicate mix of openness and
skepticism, and its encouragement of diversity and debate--is a
prerequisite for continuing the delicate experiment of freedom in an
industrial and highly technological society.

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; pp.431)

Is science of any value?
I think a power to do something is of value.
Whether the result is a good thing or a bad thing depends on
how it is used, but the power is a value.
Once in Hawaii I was asked to see a Buddhist temple.
In the temple a man said, "I am going to tell you something
that you will never forget."
And then he said, "To every man is given the key to the gates
of heaven. The same key opens the gates of hell."

Richard Feynman,
The Meaning of It All
(1963/1998; p.6)

The unprecedented powers that science now makes available must be
accompanied by unprecedented levels of ethical focus and concern by
the scientific community--as well as the most broadly based public
education into the importance of science and democracy.

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; p.419)

A proclivity for science is embedded deeply within us, in all times,
places, and cultures. It has been the means for our survival.
It is our birthright. When, through indifference, inattention,
incompetence, or fear of skepticism, we discourage children from
science, we are disenfranchising them, taking from them the tools
needed to manage their future.

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; p.317)

The visions we offer our children shape the future.
It matters what those visions are.
Often they become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Dreams are maps.

Cutting off fundamental, curiosity-driven science is like eating
the seed corn. We may have a little more to eat next winter, but
what will we plant so we and our children will have enough to
get through the winters to come?

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; p.400)

An extraterrestrial being, newly arrived on Earth--scrutinizing what
we mainly present to our children in television, radio, movies, newspapers,
magazines, the comics, and many books--might easily conclude that we are
intent on teaching them murder, rape, cruelty, superstition, credulity,
and consumerism. We keep at it, and through constant repetition many
of them finally get it. What kind of society could we create if, instead,
we drummed into them science and the sense of hope?

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; p.39)

If a nation expects to be both ignorant and free in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be. [...]
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose
both, and deserve neither.

Thomas Jefferson

When is the last time you heard an intelligent comment on science by a
President of the United States? Why in all America is there no TV drama
that has as its hero someone devoted to figuring out how the Universe
works? When a highly publicized murder trial has everyone casually
mentioning DNA testing, where are the prime-time network specials
devoted to nucleic acids and heredity? I can't even recall seeing an
accurate and comprehensible description on television of how
television works.

Carl Sagan,
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
(1996; p.376)